The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback from forty (40’) feet to thirty-seven (37’) feet to allow for the construction of an eight foot (8’) tall cedar trellis.

(Alison Terry and John Noblick were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

Discussion:

John Noblick, Jerry McClain Company, 51 N. 3rd Street, Newark, stated the applicant would like to have a variance for installation of a trellis. He indicated that the height requirement in the code is six (6’) foot and the proposed trellis is eight (8’) foot. Ms. Terry explained that this is considered to be a structure, rather than a fence due to its height. Mr. Gill noted a friendly amendment to correct the agenda and application, which indicates that the trellis was seven (7’) foot in total height. Ms. Terry stated that this is the measurement to the bottom of the trellis top, whereas the actual height to the top of the trellis would be eight (8’) foot. Mr. Gill asked if there had been any response from the notifications sent out. Ms. Terry stated no.

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-50:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

(1) Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(2) Whether the variance is substantial. The BZBA unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial.

(3) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

(4) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(6) Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Mr. Montgomery stated TRUE. Mr. Smith and Mr. Gill stated FALSE.

(7) Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

e. In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section. Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.

The request is for review and approval of a variance to increase the maximum allowable height in the district from thirty-feet (30’) to thirty-one-feet-six-inches (31’6”) to allow for the construction of a two-story addition to the home.

(Alison Terry and Mark Clapsadle were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

Discussion:

Mark Clapsadle, Granview Road, stated that they are requesting a height variance. He stated they received another variance for the height of the home in 2004, to increase the total height to thirty-six (36') feet. Mr. Clapsadle indicated the new owners would like to expand the size of the home. He stated they exceed the thirty foot (30’) code limit and need an additional foot and a half (1’5”). Ms. Terry explained the initial variance was for thirty-six (36’) feet in height, but it does not carry with any addition to the home. She also stated the application has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved with the contingency that the applicant receives a variance from the BZBA for the height of the structure. Mr. Smith stated the location of the addition where the variance is needed would not be visible from the road. He also noted none of the neighbors seem to have an issue with the request. Mr. Montgomery asked the setback from the nearest property line. Mr. Clapsadle stated that the front of the house does not face the street and it is approximately sixty foot (60’) back. He stated that the side yard is a sixty-one foot (61’) set back. Ms. Terry stated that the neighbor’s most closely affected by the addition would be the Leithauser’s.

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-88:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

(1) Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(2) Whether the variance is substantial. The BZBA unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial.

(3) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

(4) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(6) Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

(7) Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE

d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

e. In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section. Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the western side yard setback from ten (10’) feet to zero-point-three (0.3’) feet to allow for the construction of a rear two-story elevated deck.

(Micheal Duffey and Alison Terry were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

Discussion:

Mr. Smith indicated he lives across the street from Mr. Duffey, but he did not receive any notifications in the mail about this application. He indicated he has reviewed the application and he would not be able to see the proposed deck from his home. Mr. Smith indicated that he is willing to move forward on review of the application if there are not any objections. Mr. Duffey stated that he does not have an objection. Ms. Terry noted that the mail notification was an oversight by her Department and that she did speak with the Assistant Law Director, Mike King, regarding Mr. Smith's ability to vote on this application and Mr. King indicated that this would not be a problem.

Michael Duffey, 335 West Elm Street, stated that he is proposing the installation of a new deck on the rear elevation of his home. He indicated that he had already received architectural review and approval of this project from the Planning Commission, contingent upon a variance being approved by the BZBA. Mr. Duffey stated that the proposed size of the deck is nine and a half feet (9’.5”) by twelve feet (12”). He indicated that the deck would be off of the rear elevation. Mr. Duffey stated the house sits less than one foot from the eastern property line, and the neighboring property to the west is on a high elevation. He stated the deck wouldn’t come to the neighbor’s first floor view and he has had discussion with them about this project and they have no objections. Mr. Montgomery questioned if the deck would protrude beyond the Duffey’s home. Mr. Duffey stated that the deck would be in alignment with the home. Mr. Gill asked if there were any comments by neighbors regarding this application. Ms. Terry stated no.

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-97:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

(1) Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(2) Whether the variance is substantial. The BZBA unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial.

(3) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

(4) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(6) Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

(7) Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

e. In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section. Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the northern side yard setback from twelve (12’) feet to five (5’) feet to allow for the construction of a rear second-story addition.

(Alison Terry, Ed Ridgeway, and Elizabeth Moss were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

Discussion:

Ed Ridgeway, Mark Builders, stated he is the builder for the project. He indicated the addition would stay in line with the existing house and be placed on top of the first floor flat roof in the rear. Mr. Ridgeway stated this area cannot be seen from Pearl Street. He went on to explain that the bump-out would be a 10' x 25' addition and their goal is to create a straight line up so it does not appear to have been added. Ms. Terry stated anytime a home is built up with a second story a variance would be required if the new addition does not meet the current setback regulations, because of the increase in massing and scale in proximity to the property line. Ms. Terry stated that all other setback requirements have been met. Ms. Moss indicated she had a conversation with the White’s who live to the north and they did not have a problem with the proposal. She stated that she did not speak to the neighbors to the south, but they were notified by the Village. Ms. Terry stated the application would have to go before the Planning Commission for final architectural approval.

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-98:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

(1) Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(2) Whether the variance is substantial. The BZBA unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial.

(3) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

(4) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(6) Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

(7) Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

e. In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section. Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1159, Village District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.

Mr. Montgomery made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Mr. Smith. Motion carried 3-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 PM.

Next Meeting:

September 8, 2011

October 13, 2011 (Mr. Gill stated he needs to leave the meeting by 8:00 PM and he, and other members of the Board, questioned whether the meeting time could be moved to 6:30 PM. to accommodate this request. Staff indicated they could look into this request and would get back with the Board)